I've heard some rumors on old sources that I have no clue if it's true or just some scary propaganda shit.
Does it exist a satellite(s) that could take a photo of your vehicle registration plate in the middle of a desert?
If it's true could you tell me how that's possible?
I don't know much about satellites but that sounds like bullshit.
It'd have to be at a pretty specific angle, which isn't really possible when you're stuck in orbit, and that's not factoring in that it'd have to be like the most powerful camera ever.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
We could try to spin the Hubble Telescope around I guess
Intelligence agencies worldwide have satelites so powerful they can read a notepad in your hand [i]while you're writing it.[/i] They, of course, don't publicize details on these machines for rather obvious reasons, but they are up there. Thankfully they don't really care about civvies, they point them at bad guys.[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;39061520]
We could try to spin the Hubble Telescope around I guess[/QUOTE]
Hubble can barely focus well enough to get a decent shot of the Apollo sites. It couldn't resolve a license plate.
The only way that would work is if it took a bunch of pictures in a very small area, From an angle, Facing towards the plate, Isn't cloudy, and if it can even take a clear picture from 70,000-100,000 meters up, While moving in orbit at around 1500-2500 meters per second, Then more than likely not.
Satellites are the tools of the devil.
No, the closest detail on the best satellites is about 1 to 1/2 a foot, not enough to read text that size.
I believe the Army intelligence have cameras up in satellites that have enough megapixels in them that they can zoom in as far as looking at your number plates etc. so yes its true.
[QUOTE=mooty;39064557]I believe the Army intelligence have cameras up in satellites [B]that have enough megapixels in them [/B]that they can zoom in as far as looking at your number plates etc. so yes its true.[/QUOTE]
The way you worded that made me laugh. I was thinking like, a truck with giant-ass pixels driving into a top secret facility, then just dumping them into a funnel that led to a tube attached to the sattelite before launch.
I don't think the resolutions of the camera would play such a big part in it sure it's important to get a clear image but I think that magnification lenses would play a bigger part.
If these satelliets could take a picture of the plate but the picture was to blurry/shitty/whatever. Does the millitary, FBI and those people have the ability to fix it by computers so it could be readable?
^^yes, like they can always reconstruct the face of felons to match yours.
Are you planning some sort or crime
[QUOTE=iusehax;39066128]Are you planning some sort or crime[/QUOTE]
Unless he's Niko Bellic I can't think of any crime he could perform that would justify the cost/resources of using satellites to track him.
There is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution#Lens_resolution"]fundamental optical limit[/URL] on the resolution that a lens of a certain size can resolve for a particular wavelength of light. In reality the resolution will be worse than that due to imperfections and other factors. I was about to do some ballpark math using that formula, but it turns out Wikipedia already has an [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMINT#Satellites"]article on spy satellites[/URL]:
[QUOTE] Were the Hubble Space Telescope, with a 2.4 m telescope, designed for photographing Earth, it would be diffraction-limited to resolutions greater than 16 cm (6 inches) for green light ( \lambda \approx 550 nm) at its orbital altitude of 590 km. This means that it would be impossible to take photographs showing objects smaller than 16 cm with such a telescope at such an altitude. Modern U.S. IMINT satellites are believed to have around 10 cm resolution; contrary to references in popular culture, this is sufficient to detect any type of vehicle, but not to read the headlines of a newspaper.[/QUOTE]
If you make a much more optimistic estimate (ridiculously large satellite, impractically close to earth, only concerned with resolving the shorter wavelenghts of visible light) you can get down [URL="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=150km+*+%281.22+*+400nm%2F10m%29"]sub 1cm resolution[/URL]. Plenty enough for reading license plates, but only if the satellite is facing them directly, and I think it's safe to say nobody is crazy enough to actually build such a satellite.
just watch this
[video=youtube;raWZraPHLqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raWZraPHLqM[/video]
I'm reminded of this.
[URL="http://gizmodo.com/5881391/never-before-seen-satellite-spy-shots-from-the-depths-of-the-cold-war/"]"Never Before Seen Satellite Spy Shots from the Depths of the Cold War"[/URL]
[QUOTE] "The images have undoubtedly been degraded, because...HEXAGON's best imagery capabilities remain classified."[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2012/02/8b8336b0f655845203dd0f7cdafb28d0.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Blockhead;39061902]The only way that would work is if it took a bunch of pictures in a very small area, From an angle, Facing towards the plate, Isn't cloudy, and if it can even take a clear picture from 70,000-100,000 meters up, While moving in orbit at around 1500-2500 meters per second, Then more than likely not.[/QUOTE]
If it's in geostationary orbit the oribtal speed won't even factor in. That's why a lot of spy sats are in or nearly in such orbits.
all the satellites are loaded with nukes and prepared to nuke the planet from orbit
[QUOTE=iusehax;39066128]Are you planning some sort or crime[/QUOTE]
this guy's a necrophiliac or at least has some other sort of death fetish
i wouldn't be surprised
[QUOTE=Joazzz;39078021]this guy's a necrophiliac or at least has some other sort of death fetish
i wouldn't be surprised[/QUOTE]
People has been missunderstanding that thing.
It's nothing sexually, I just like when people die.
Which is also extremely disturbed
[QUOTE=Jocke;39078403]I just like when people die.
Which is also extremely disturbed[/QUOTE]the CIA thanked me for being an active western citizen and told me they're contacting the swedish police immediately
[QUOTE=Jocke;39078403]People has been missunderstanding that thing.
It's nothing sexually, I just like when people die.
Which is also extremely disturbed[/QUOTE]
Does it involve mutilated bodies ?
[QUOTE=fritzel;39080639]Does it involve mutilated bodies ?[/QUOTE]
There's limits
They cant read it if you wrap it in tin-foil!
Actually, better wrap your hat up while you're still at it.
you can speculate satellite resolutions all you want, even though they most likely are not capable of the resolution needed for a legible picture of a license plate
the reality is imagine trying to get a shot of the number plate from an angle above the car - unless you mount the plate on your roof or the car is sitting vertically somehow, the satellite would have to look at extreme angles through shittonnes more atmosphere and distance
.. of course it begs the question, what would provoke someone/a group to use a satellite to snatch the license plate of your car?
surely if you are that important, just knowing where you are in the desert and the approximate car type and colour would be more reliable, useful information?
[QUOTE=TestECull;39077823]If it's in geostationary orbit the oribtal speed won't even factor in. That's why a lot of spy sats are in or nearly in such orbits.[/QUOTE]
yeah, super useful satellite placement, able to focus on all of a small part of the equator
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.